Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
SM makes a good product.

Opinions on the raincoat analogy. Any?

It makes sense that more charged particles would fail to be deflected in a weakneing magnetosphere. I don't knoiw what you mean by IR is the same al the way up, though.

As for the impact on climate, do you have any evidence showing changes in climate around the time of pole flips?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
It makes sense that more charged particles would fail to be deflected in a weakneing magnetosphere. I don't knoiw what you mean by IR is the same al the way up, though.

As for the impact on climate, do you have any evidence showing changes in climate around the time of pole flips?

800C - 1150C in the thermosphere can't radiate downward into the lower atmosphere? The less magnetic protection means the upper atmosphere gets more heating. Have we not heard oodles about how the upper atmosphere is getting warmer. Is it CO2 heating the upper atmosphere or solar irradiance from a far weaker magnetosphere? The sun doesn't have to change if the earth does, does it? We also know the sun's energy is responsible for diverging jetstreams.

The magnetic toroid we live beneath is changing at a rate of 800% above normal. That is huge. And it all started at the same time as Global Warming the mid 1800s and really went nuts in the early 1970's.

Is the timeline just a coincidence? Keep this in mind, 25Ka the Magnetic pole sat waaaaay down in James Bay. What sat above it at that time? A continental glacier.

Dismissing such incredible geophysical change is foolhardy.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
800C - 1150C in the thermosphere can't radiate downward into the lower atmosphere? The less magnetic protection means the upper atmosphere gets more heating. Have we not heard oodles about how the upper atmosphere is getting warmer. Is it CO2 heating the upper atmosphere or solar irradiance from a far weaker magnetosphere? The sun doesn't have to change if the earth does, does it? We also know the sun's energy is responsible for diverging jetstreams.

The magnetic toroid we live beneath is changing at a rate of 800% above normal. That is huge. And it all started at the same time as Global Warming the mid 1800s and really went nuts in the early 1970's.

Is the timeline just a coincidence? Keep this in mind, 25Ka the Magnetic pole sat waaaaay down in James Bay. What sat above it at that time? A continental glacier.

Dismissing such incredible geophysical change is foolhardy.

Good questions. As I said it would be interesting to see the charts on that. Does temperature change on a geological scale correlate with pole flips? That would provide some evidence for that theory.

Heat is radiated in all directions. Heat directed upwards would have less chance of being reabsorbed given molecular density, particualrly in the outer thermospehere. Heat directed downward would be more likely to be absorbed.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
Good questions. As I said it would be interesting to see the charts on that. Does temperature change on a geological scale correlate with pole flips? That would provide some evidence for that theory.

Heat is radiated in all directions. Heat directed upwards would have less chance of being reabsorbed given molecular density, particualrly in the outer thermospehere. Heat directed downward would be more likely to be absorbed.

We aren't seeing a flip.....yet. Just rapid movement and a substantial weakening.

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

There is plenty of evidence linking sunspots to glacial fluctuations but little on the effects of weakening...for now.

ESA's Swarm just launched last year is showing really weird sh-t going down. We'll know more soon enough.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Which scientists is stickman talking about ?

real scientists, Walter... real ones! Not your favoured kind of "(denier) blog scientists"

There is plenty of evidence linking sunspots to glacial fluctuations...

of course; already acknowledged..... but no evidence linking sunspots to the relatively recent receding of glaciers!
GLOBAL LAND ICE MEASUREMENTS FROM SPACE (GLIMS): an international collaboration (including the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center) and 60+ other institutions across the globe... all working to provide the most comprehensive report to date on global glacier changes. In that regard, the latest publication from GLIMS: "Worldwide retreat of glaciers confirmed in unprecedented detail"
The book, Global Land Ice Measurements from Space, presents an overview and detailed assessment of changes in the world’s glaciers by using satellite imagery from optical satellite instruments such as ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) and Landsat.

While the shrinking of glaciers on all continents is already known from ground observations of individual glaciers, by using repeated satellite observations GLIMS has firmly established that glaciers are shrinking globally. Although some glaciers are maintaining their size, most glaciers are dwindling. The foremost cause of the worldwide reductions in glaciers is global warming, the team writes.

The full-color book has twenty-five regional chapters that illustrate glacier changes from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Other chapters provide a thorough theoretical background on glacier monitoring and mapping, remote sensing techniques, uncertainties, and interpretation of the observations in a climatic context. The book highlights many other glacier research applications of satellite data, including measurement of glacier thinning from repeated satellite-based digital elevation models (DEMs) and calculation of surface flow velocities from repeated satellite images.​

Although it's certainly true that the impact of sun on climate is a topic where there is much to be learned, even if it can be shown that the sun is predominately to blame for recent warming, you would still have to demonstrate why CO2 is not acting as predicted. If it turns out that CO2 is not warming the earth, that's throwing out a couple of hundred years of spectral physics.

apparently, while member 'petros' ridicules the impact of CO2 while pumping his (yet another) pet-theory on sunspots, there is no positive correlation evidence offered between the relatively recent warming and sunspot numbers - go figure!

per the Stanford Solar Observatories Group:


 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
real scientists, Walter... real ones! Not your favoured kind of "(denier) blog scientists"



of course; already acknowledged..... but no evidence linking sunspots to the relatively recent receding of glaciers!GLOBAL LAND ICE MEASUREMENTS FROM SPACE (GLIMS): an international collaboration (including the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center) and 60+ other institutions across the globe... all working to provide the most comprehensive report to date on global glacier changes. In that regard, the latest publication from GLIMS: "Worldwide retreat of glaciers confirmed in unprecedented detail"
The book, Global Land Ice Measurements from Space, presents an overview and detailed assessment of changes in the world’s glaciers by using satellite imagery from optical satellite instruments such as ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) and Landsat.
In
While the shrinking of glaciers on all continents is already known from ground observations of individual glaciers, by using repeated satellite observations GLIMS has firmly established that glaciers are shrinking globally. Although some glaciers are maintaining their size, most glaciers are dwindling. The foremost cause of the worldwide reductions in glaciers is global warming, the team writes.

The full-color book has twenty-five regional chapters that illustrate glacier changes from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Other chapters provide a thorough theoretical background on glacier monitoring and mapping, remote sensing techniques, uncertainties, and interpretation of the observations in a climatic context. The book highlights many other glacier research applications of satellite data, including measurement of glacier thinning from repeated satellite-based digital elevation models (DEMs) and calculation of surface flow velocities from repeated satellite images.​


apparently, while member 'petros' ridicules the impact of CO2 while pumping his (yet another) pet-theory on sunspots, there is no positive correlation evidence offered between the relatively recent warming and sunspot numbers - go figure!

per the Stanford Solar Observatories Group:


Solar irradiance doesn't need to increase. Not when other factors are at play. But that sh-t is out of your league so go back to the kid's table and quit pestering the men. We are trying to discuss important issues.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
We aren't seeing a flip.....yet. Just rapid movement and a substantial weakening.

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

There is plenty of evidence linking sunspots to glacial fluctuations but little on the effects of weakening...for now.

ESA's Swarm just launched last year is showing really weird sh-t going down. We'll know more soon enough.

I see your point. You've still got increasing CO2. If that isn't warming the atmosphere, why not? It should be.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html?_r=0

"Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans"


You see folks... all we need is for European nations, Canada, and the U.S to make electronic bank transfers to the United Nations and the world will be saved.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
You were right.

See.

Walter, you and your lil' oneLiner buddy 'taxslave' are certainly encouraged to attempt to counter my post; you know, what you're oneLining about here - yes?

not sure why you resurrected this thread Walter... your OP talks of "the left not liking facts"! Again Walter, is there "left-leaning science" and "right-leaning science".... or is there just... science?

you felt so emboldened in your presumptive "facts" that within your OP, you blindly drop a "ta da" link to Uncle Roy's website. You don't zero in on any particular blog posting from Spencer, on any particular position Uncle Roy is flaunting... on any particular "fact"... nope, you just blindly drop a link to his home-page and call that your "facts"! :mrgreen: Of course you do!

if you're capable, if you'd care to fish out anything in particular from Uncle Roy, any particular fact, please do so!

Solar irradiance doesn't need to increase. Not when other factors are at play. But that sh-t is out of your league so go back to the kid's table and quit pestering the men. We are trying to discuss important issues.

you sure seem to put a lot of stock in the variance of solar irradiance... in the number of sunspots. Do your "other factors" allow you a dodgy-dodge when it's pointed out to you (as if you really didn't know) that there is no positive correlation between solar irradiance/sunspot activity and the relatively recent warming? What "other factors"... just how many "pet theories" do you maintain around here... and just when have you ever laid them all out in a (presumably) cohesive and non-contradicting manner? :lol:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
I see your point. You've still got increasing CO2. If that isn't warming the atmosphere, why not? It should be.

Shake off CO2 as a sole source of warming and doors open.

CO2 is also a coolant in our atmosphere. Neat huh?

A Puzzling Collapse of Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

Walter, you and your lil' oneLiner buddy 'taxslave' are certainly encouraged to attempt to counter my post; you know, what you're oneLining about here - yes?

not sure why you resurrected this thread Walter... your OP talks of "the left not liking facts"! Again Walter, is there "left-leaning science" and "right-leaning science".... or is there just... science?

you felt so emboldened in your presumptive "facts" that within your OP, you blindly drop a "ta da" link to Uncle Roy's website. You don't zero in on any particular blog posting from Spencer, on any particular position Uncle Roy is flaunting... on any particular "fact"... nope, you just blindly drop a link to his home-page and call that your "facts"! :mrgreen: Of course you do!

if you're capable, if you'd care to fish out anything in particular from Uncle Roy, any particular fact, please do so!

you sure seem to put a lot of stock in the variance of solar irradiance... in the number of sunspots. Do your "other factors" allow you a dodgy-dodge when it's pointed out to you (as if you really didn't know) that there is no positive correlation between solar irradiance/sunspot activity and the relatively recent warming? What "other factors"... just how many "pet theories" do you maintain around here... and just when have you ever laid them all out in a (presumably) cohesive and non-contradicting manner? :lol:
Shut up boy and let the men discuss this.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
You see folks... all we need is for European nations, Canada, and the U.S to make electronic bank transfers to the United Nations and the world will be saved.

interesting that you would equate negotiations/agreement to... UN wealth transfer. That's novel; that's certainly never been stated before! :lol: Do you have a personal monetary measurement value on that "save' you speak of... and how did you arrive at it?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
interesting that you would equate negotiations/agreement to... UN wealth transfer. That's novel; that's certainly never been stated before! :lol: Do you have a personal monetary measurement value on that "save' you speak of... and how did you arrive at it?

I suppose whatever the UN can squeeze out. They always seem to come up with a monetary value by the end of these conferences.

And that is what this is all about.

Buy your carbon credits for 2015 yet?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html?_r=0

"Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans"


You see folks... all we need is for European nations, Canada, and the U.S to make electronic bank transfers to the United Nations and the world will be saved.

What % of the US economy is consumer based? What will it be in 2030 when the remaining industry is packed in? How much debt relief is RPK offering on the Bonds China is sitting on?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I suppose whatever the UN can squeeze out. They always seem to come up with a monetary value by the end of these conferences.

And that is what this is all about.

your initial post spoke with such authority, I'm surprised you don't have a number! In any case, any direct contribution aspects, say to a "climate fund", pale in comparison to the negotiations and binding target emission agreements being targeted. Talk of a direct monetary transfer facet is more of a distraction than anything else.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Shut up boy and let the men discuss this.

when some of your pet-theories are questioned/challenged... and you have no comeback, no need to get so defensive. So now you've reached into the "thermosphere... for cooling CO2" and think you'll try that one out for a while! Make sure you speak to the timing significance of 2008/2009..... and hot-damn (as in literally), when that solar minimum actually finally does relax, just how hot is it going to get around here, hey? 8O
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
your initial post spoke with such authority, I'm surprised you don't have a number! In any case, any direct contribution aspects, say to a "climate fund", pale in comparison to the negotiations and binding target emission agreements being targeted. Talk of a direct monetary transfer facet is more of a distraction than anything else.

There is always a set number and it is always the driving factor. Please review the latest numbers from the various climate conferences as the number is always changing. And it always comes down to that... MONEY TRANSFERS.

Binding target emission agreements! You're buying into that silliness?

Did you purchase your carbon credits for 2015?